Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: open
Which is why I so wisely refrained from using the U word in this thread. ;) The way I use the word "update" is analogous to an earthquake. Big shock, and things change a lot. What's going on here is more just a tremor, and not a full blown Earthquake. A little jolt, but nothing major.
Which is why I so wisely refrained from using the U word in this thread
Exactly what is the definition of an update these days? It used to be easy a year and a half to two years ago. When backlinks changed to sites, that was the official mark of an update (although SERP'S would ofton change radically prior to that).
How do we define the "U" word now with the way Google has changed it's ways?
Googleguy - this is a pretty bold statement. Perhaps you are using the word "update" loosely?
I would imagine that each full blown update requires a large amount of human and computing power... are you sure you don't mean that we will see daily changes due to an even more aggressive FreshBot schedule?
Freshbot does cause "changes" to the index... so in a sense, it could be viewed as causing a constant "update".
Please clarify... and thanks in advance!
I was hoping things would change possibly Google would see the light and stop filtering rich content sites.
It certainly isn't filtering all of them. The "content site" players for the keyphrases that I track are ranked within a few places of where they were last month, the previous month, and the month before that.
If this is the case, then will the update threads stop? After all its going to be "the boy who cried wolf" pretty soon:
"Its an update!" - 150k post thread
"Ok, just an adjustment" - 12 post thread
"Now its an update! Really, I can tell, becuase I checked my super secret SERPs, and dammit, they are different!" - 300k post thread
"Ok, its just an adjustment" - 15 post thread
"update, update, update! It has to be an update, my sites have dropped off Google. Or maybe its just because last Tuesday, I dreamt that I exclaimed that Yahoo had a better search engine. And Google must have found out. damn them." - WebmasterWorld explodes.
Yeah, you get back to a point where it takes less than a day to read everything posted in the last 24-hours.
What would be cool is to have a feature where you could set up a list of keywords and be notified if a post is made with one of those keywords. So I could set up "site match -evil" or "apache +mod_rewrite -htaccess"
Brett? Is that a difficult thing? It would help to wade through the mountains of posts.
Only see three moves that are non-good:
- not very relevant keyword.com moves back up to #1
- two garbage anchor text sites move up some (perhaps this also explains keyword.com moving up)
- one page of gibberish text, on a keyword.site.com subdomain, with a white bar and only eight off-topic backlinks somehow is at about #12 for a super competitive term. Other sites similar to this have fallen as they should, but this one stuck.
This is more like we should have been around the time of the 64 appearance. Generally good results, but a higher dose of niche relevance weighting would improve things by downgrading these stubborn pseudo-sites that manage to hang on.
but a higher dose of niche relevance weighting would improve things
I agree. That's what's needed now. It looks like a load of the giant-shopping-portal.com/nothing-to-do-with-shopping.html sites have been booted back to where they belong - but there are still a lot of real "on topic" niche sites that are unfairly placed.
I wonder if some of the oddnesses in search results lately, what with sites shooting up or plummeting down or inexplicably disappearing for one keyword phrase but not another, could be explained by similar glitches with the cache. It would certainly explain why so-called "over-optimized" pages are the ones it keeps happening to--they're the ones that have their SEO tinkered on a weekly basis, and I'm sure if they suddenly switched to a cache from 3 months ago their web promoters would have NO idea what the heck was happening to them.
Just another thought to add to the mix...
I have been aware of that behaviour for at least a year. Sometimes it might revert to a cache copy from a very long time ago (I have heard odd tales of over a year old).